What “Missing Middle Housing” Actually Means—and Why Cities Are Talking About It
If you follow local housing debates, you’ll often hear arguments framed as a choice between two extremes: detached houses or high-rise towers. But there’s a whole range of housing in between—and that’s what planners call the “missing middle.”
What is “missing middle” housing?
“Missing middle” housing refers to homes that sit between single-family houses and large apartment buildings in both size and density. Richmond Hill and many suburban cities across Canada are dominated by those two ends of the spectrum, leaving relatively few options in between.
At its core, the term describes low-rise, multi-unit housing that still fits into neighbourhoods built around houses.
These are typically:
- Ground-oriented or low-rise (often under 4 storeys)
- Designed at a similar scale to houses
- Able to accommodate more people per lot
In simple terms: more homes, without the feel of a tower.
The “in-between” housing types
Missing middle isn’t one thing—it’s a category. Common examples include:
- Duplexes (two units in one house-like building)
- Triplexes and fourplexes
- Townhouses or row houses
- Stacked townhouses
- Small apartment buildings (usually 3–4 storeys)
These types used to be common in older neighbourhoods built before strict zoning rules—but are now relatively rare in newer suburban areas.
Why is it called “missing”?
Because in many cities, it’s been hard—or even illegal—to build these forms for decades.
Post-war planning in North America largely separated land uses and prioritized:
- Single-detached homes in most residential areas
- High-density buildings only in specific zones
That created a gap. As one Canadian housing analysis notes, missing middle homes are often “underrepresented in new supply,” even though they can be built within existing neighbourhoods.
Why cities are suddenly talking about it
There are a few reasons this concept has moved from planning jargon into mainstream conversation:
1. Housing affordability
Missing middle housing can:
- Spread land costs across multiple units
- Offer more attainable options than detached homes
- Provide alternatives to small condos
It’s not automatically “affordable,” but it broadens the range of choices for people who feel stuck between a house and a condo.
2. Gentle density
Instead of dramatic change (like towers), missing middle housing adds people gradually:
- A duplex instead of one house
- A row of townhomes instead of a single lot
This is often called “gentle density”—growth that fits the existing neighbourhood fabric.
3. Faster and simpler to build
Compared to high-rises, these projects:
- Require less capital
- Can be built by smaller developers
- Sometimes avoid lengthy rezoning processes
That makes them an attractive tool for cities trying to increase housing supply more quickly.
4. More complete neighbourhoods
Because they add population without overwhelming infrastructure, these housing types can:
- Support local shops and services
- Make transit more viable
- Encourage walkable communities
Why this matters locally
In places like Richmond Hill, conversations about density often jump straight from:
- “Protect detached neighbourhoods”
to - “Build high-rise towers”
What gets lost is everything in between.
That gap shapes how debates play out:
- Residents fear sudden, large-scale change
- Policymakers rely on towers to meet growth targets
- Smaller, incremental options are rarely considered at scale
Across the Greater Toronto Area, including Toronto, planners have started looking at ways to reintroduce these housing forms—like allowing multiplexes or low-rise apartments in traditionally single-family areas.
The Canadian policy angle
At the national level, missing middle housing has become part of the policy conversation:
- Federal programs are encouraging cities to allow things like triplexes
- Research from housing agencies highlights its role in expanding supply
- Local zoning reforms are slowly opening the door to these forms
Economists and housing researchers—like Mike Moffatt—have also been pushing for more of this type of housing, often arguing that Canada’s housing shortage isn’t just about how much we build, but what we build.
The takeaway
Missing middle housing isn’t a silver bullet—but it changes the conversation.
Instead of asking:
- Houses or towers?
It asks:
- What about everything in between?
And in suburban cities where growth pressures are rising, that “in-between” may be where the most realistic—and least disruptive—solutions are found.